Preserving Religious Freedom in Time of Crisis: Remarks by Elder Bednar

[pogi]

Just now, bluebell said:

I know you didn't say mortal life, (except for for when you said "Mortal life led to worship in mortality") but we are talking about mortal life in his discussion so other types of life don't seem relevant.  

We could also correctly say that agency makes worship possible though. Without agency, life is ultimately irrelevant and God's will is frustrated.  God's mercy can't overcome all losses of agency, which satan's plan taught us.  Even with the existence of mercy, agency is still essential for the plan of salvation to work.

If we are strictly speaking about mortality, then mortal life makes mortal worship possible.  It is primal in every sense.  Life is primal to agency too. 

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Tishbite said:

He seems to be creating a false dichotomy here. Religious gatherings of a large number of people sitting in a room together for an extended period time are very different from the more transient traffic through the other venues that he mentioned. Additionally, liquor stores were deemed essential due to medical concerns about alcohol withdrawal and the potential increase in hospital intake in an already overburdened system if they were to be closed. They weren't kept open just because people like drinking alcohol. Similarly, marijuana dispensaries service actual medical needs, making it essential.

Plus, while the government might have restricted religious gatherings due to the fact that they have proven to be a vector of spread (and this disproportionately affects the elderly who are at higher risk), they did not ban religious services per se. Many churches and religions have chosen to do online services during the pandemic, and the LDS church could have easily done the same. The interests of public health have required some adaptation of religious practice, perhaps, but the government did not restrict our right to worship beyond what was necessary and practical.

I think I'm going to like you!  Welcome to the board! I agree with what you say here! 

[bsjkki]

6 hours ago, Tishbite said:

He seems to be creating a false dichotomy here. Religious gatherings of a large number of people sitting in a room together for an extended period time are very different from the more transient traffic through the other venues that he mentioned. Additionally, liquor stores were deemed essential due to medical concerns about alcohol withdrawal and the potential increase in hospital intake in an already overburdened system if they were to be closed. They weren't kept open just because people like drinking alcohol. Similarly, marijuana dispensaries service actual medical needs, making it essential.

Plus, while the government might have restricted religious gatherings due to the fact that they have proven to be a vector of spread (and this disproportionately affects the elderly who are at higher risk), they did not ban religious services per se. Many churches and religions have chosen to do online services during the pandemic, and the LDS church could have easily done the same. The interests of public health have required some adaptation of religious practice, perhaps, but the government did not restrict our right to worship beyond what was necessary and practical.

This is what he says.

"Third reflection: Religious freedom is fragile. As we have just experienced, religious freedom can quickly be swept aside in the name of protecting other societal interests. Despite COVID-19 risks, North American jurisdictions declared as essential numerous services related to alcohol, animals, marijuana, and other concerns. But often religious organizations and their services were simply deemed nonessential, even when their activities could be conducted safely. In the name of protecting physical health and security or advancing other social values, government often acted without regard to the importance of protecting spiritual health and security. It often seemed to forget that securing religious freedom is as vital as physical health."

Fourth reflection: In a time of crisis, sensitive tools are necessary to balance the demands of religious liberty with the just interests of society. I am not for a moment saying that religious freedom can be unlimited in the middle of a pandemic. Nor am I saying that all government officials have disregarded religious rights. Far from it.

What I am saying is that we can no more disregard the valid claims of religious freedom in a time of crisis than we can disregard the valid claims of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Nor should we prioritize secular interests above religious ones. A health crisis should not become an excuse for a religious freedom crisis.

For example, the orders of one state barred Catholic priests from anointing a parishioner with holy oil in the performance of last rites—even if the person was not sick with COVID-19, even if the priest and parishioner were protected with masks and gloves, and even if the oil was applied with a swab. In the same state, my Church could not perform baptisms even under the safest of conditions.

Protecting a person’s physical health from the coronavirus is, of course, important, but so is a person’s spiritual health. That same state allowed lawyers to meet with people to administer to their legal needs, allowed doctors to meet with people to administer to their health needs, and allowed caregivers to administer food to satisfy nutritional needs. But it did not allow a clergyperson to administer to a person’s religious needs, even when the risk of all these activities was essentially the same.

This example and many more like it illustrate a profound devaluing of religion. We can and must do better.

I also believe we must always remember a second essential principle: namely, policy makers, even in a crisis, should limit the exercise of religion only when it truly is necessary to preserve public health and safety.

When the needs of society are great, officials should still ask whether there is some way of addressing those needs other than by burdening or banning the exercise of religion. With goodwill and a little creativity, ways can almost always be found to fulfill both society’s needs and the imperative to protect religious freedom.

After all, the COVID-19 virus is not attracted uniquely to religious people. As most of us now recognize, a variety of methods can be used to mitigate the risk of the virus that do not require outright prohibitions on religious worship or gatherings.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Boanerges said:

 

Lastly, there has been some reference to religious freedom as opposed to religious liberty. I'm not sure I see a difference in the two.

Are you referring to me? I’ve been using both terms, but I have intended them as synonyms. I have not meant to imply there is a difference. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Boanerges said:

I fully believe an underlying concern of the leadership is that after doing "home church" for this long some will decide they can live without "church church."

Aside from that, I probably live in the state referenced by Elder Bednar. A couple points about that:

1) We have been taking our instructions from our Area leadership. During the height of the crisis here we were forbidden from giving blessing and taking the sacrament to others. We were told the only contact we should have is via phone or video conference. These restrictions, and others, were church restrictions, although I'm sure the government agreed. Things here have only slightly been eased. We can now bless the sacrament for someone who does not have the priesthood in the home, but they supply the bread/water and we aren't to linger - just do the blessing (which may be done outside) and go. But there are still no live interviews, meetings of any kind, etc.

2) In my state (NY) the first major spread of the disease came via religious services/religious school. NYC's pandemic began with Jews. That's not meant to be anti-Semitic or accusatory, it's just the way it was. An individual had traveled to Europe, brought the disease back to his family who spread it to neighbors, the private school where the kids went, and his synagogue. The thing is exponential, as Drs. Fauci and Birx have often asserted, 2 today, 20 tomorrow, 200 the next day - and that's literally how it was in NYC. (Note that I live several hundred miles from NYC.) And while our governor likely should have acted faster, it was necessary that he stop religious services and he did - while some early on defied his order and continued to spread the disease.

Lastly, there has been some reference to religious freedom as opposed to religious liberty. I'm not sure I see a difference in the two.

Are you certain Elder Bednar was referring to New York? Here is what he said about his Catholic example:

For example, the orders of one state barred Catholic priests from anointing a parishioner with holy oil in the performance of last rites—even if the person was not sick with COVID-19, even if the priest and parishioner were protected with masks and gloves, and even if the oil was applied with a swab. In the same state, my Church could not perform baptisms even under the safest of conditions.
 

This does strike me as draconian, especially if secular interests were getting a pass under comparable conditions and circumstances. 
 

Moreover, your taking your instructions from your area leadership does not rule out said instructions having been driven by directive from local government. I’m certain the Church leaders, in an effort to be “good citizens,” have done all they can in each and every locale to accede to the demands of civil authority so as to avoid needless conflict, whether or not the demands have been perfectly reasonable and equitable. 
 

Lastly, in reference to your first paragraph above, I believe Elder Bednar spoke the truth when he said if religious folk are forbidden to gather, they will tend to scatter. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Boanerges]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I've heard that concern expressed by a few leaders in my stake, and there may be some truth to it. Only time will tell. But the vibe I'm picking up is the exact opposite. I've had people who might have attended church twice last year asking me when we'll be allowed to meet again. I fully expect our numbers to stay the same (though perhaps with new faces replacing a few old ones?) or to increase.

I have similarly only heard from local leaders but also like you expect our attendance to stay the same at least after any fear of catching the disease at church subsides, although I do not expect an increase - growth is very slow here. 

[Boanerges]

13 hours ago, Tishbite said:

He seems to be creating a false dichotomy here. Religious gatherings of a large number of people sitting in a room together for an extended period time are very different from the more transient traffic through the other venues that he mentioned. Additionally, liquor stores were deemed essential due to medical concerns about alcohol withdrawal and the potential increase in hospital intake in an already overburdened system if they were to be closed. They weren't kept open just because people like drinking alcohol. Similarly, marijuana dispensaries service actual medical needs, making it essential.

Plus, while the government might have restricted religious gatherings due to the fact that they have proven to be a vector of spread (and this disproportionately affects the elderly who are at higher risk), they did not ban religious services per se. Many churches and religions have chosen to do online services during the pandemic, and the LDS church could have easily done the same. The interests of public health have required some adaptation of religious practice, perhaps, but the government did not restrict our right to worship beyond what was necessary and practical.

You make a very good point. Church itself was not specifically banned in NY either, it was large gatherings that were banned. Churches were welcome to hold video services (my ward does a weekly thing), and in the church sacrament was authorized to be administered in homes with a worthy priesthood holder. There were some churches that held parking lot services. My area is one of the more advanced in the reopening phases (NY's phase 3) and no churches have resumed services in my area that I am aware of, although the governor now allows gatherings of up to 25 and restaurants can open at 50% capacity. 

[Boanerges]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you certain Elder Bednar was referring to New York? Here is what he said about his Catholic example:

For example, the orders of one state barred Catholic priests from anointing a parishioner with holy oil in the performance of last rites—even if the person was not sick with COVID-19, even if the priest and parishioner were protected with masks and gloves, and even if the oil was applied with a swab. In the same state, my Church could not perform baptisms even under the safest of conditions.
No, I am not sure it was NY but I am sure similar things happened in NY. Our church cannot perform baptisms here either - still. The missionaries do teach via social media/video but they are still stuck in their apartments most of the time. They are allowed to go outside to "exercise" up to an hour a day and complete P day activities on a limited basis (do it quick).  There are no blessings to be given, no setting aparts, no live temple recommend interviews, no meetings of any kind, etc. My understanding is that these are all church restrictions, not necessarily government restrictions. The government has allowed meetings/groups up to 10 for a couple weeks and just upped it to 25 this week. That would seem to allow things like bishopric or ward council, but they are still forbidden by the church (my bishop specifically asked the stake president) .There are government restrictions in addition. A few hospitals have been allowed to pilot allowing immediate family visitors with full PPE, etc. So even if priesthood blessings were allowed, priesthood otherwise aren't allowed to come to the hospital to give the blessing unless it's your immediate family member (we have a case like that currently in our ward and none of our local hospitals are part of the pilot).  

This does strike me as draconian, especially if secular interests were getting a pass under comparable conditions and circumstances. 
Draconian? Maybe. But in Elder Bednar's description it does not seem to be singling out specific churches - Catholics can't give blessings or baptize and neither can we. Since it is clear that the spread of COVID is exacerbated by large gatherings, restricting such large gatherings seems perfectly reasonable to me.  

Moreover, your taking your instructions from your area leadership does not rule out said instructions having been driven by directive from local government. I’m certain the Church leaders, in an effort to be “good citizens,” have done all they can in each and every locale to accede to the demands of civil authority so as to avoid needless conflict, whether or not the demands have been perfectly reasonable and equitable. 
I'm sure the Area Presidency does consult current government policies/restrictions - it says they should in the church's phased reopening plan. My area is very large and encompasses several states, not all of which have the same restrictions we have - but church meetings and other church restrictions have not been lifted in those other states either (as far as I can tell). Six of the 11 temples in the Area are in phase 1, three of those just this week. I have a neighbor who is a sealer in the Palmyra Temple and he says he was told he shouldn't report for his shift this week and they'll let him know when he is needed. He of course normally is involved in proxy sealings. 

Lastly, in reference to your first paragraph above, I believe Elder Bednar spoke the truth when he said if religious folk are forbidden to gather, they will tend to scatter. 

This one I'm just not sure about. The Jews survived their various diasporas, although undoubtedly lost some. As I said in another response here, I expect our attendance to remain pretty much the same after it all dies down. 

 

[CV75]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here’s an important article posted on “Newsroom” on the Church website covering remarks by Elder David A. Bednar to the BYU Law Society. It deals with the importance of preserving religious liberty even during a time of pandemic or other crisis. After giving the link, I’ll post excerpts. But I recommend going there and reading the whole thing. 

***

I think it striking that Elder Bednar used examples involving Catholics as well as Latter-day Saints. As Church members we should be about the business of safeguarding religious freedom for everyone, not just ourselves  

 

I’m not sure if designating religion to be a non-essential service is a function of too much power or a lack of appreciation, understanding and changing values. Politics and economics go hand in hand, and in a materialistic / secular society, the essential nature of religion will take second place to booze, pets, gas and pot anyway. I think the argument needs to be made (which i think Elder Bednar is making), as I believe it was more successfully done in earlier decades, that religion is on a par with the other freedoms, essential and ingrained in our constitution.

I think the four principles he listed are definitely worth reflecting on and promulgating. “In our understandable desire to combat COVID-19, we, too, as a society may have forgotten something about who we are and what is most precious,” he concluded. “Now is the time for us to heed the wake-up call, to remember and to act.”

[Amulek]

Quote

Elder Bednar continued, “While believers and their religious organizations must be good citizens in a time of crisis, never again can we allow government officials to treat the exercise of religion as simply nonessential. Never again must the fundamental right to worship God be trivialized below the ability to buy gasoline.”

I think this is exactly the kind of language we should be seeing from the Church on this subject. What we have seen in certain states is that the governments in those jurisdictions simply don't think religion is that important. It's regulated to be less important than gas stations and alcohol marts. The hypocrisy is on full display and needs to be called out.  

When New Yorkers attempted to gather and morn the loss of a Hasidic rabbi recently, here's what they were told by Mayor Bill de Blasio: "My message to the Jewish community, and all communities, is this simple: the time for warnings has passed. I have instructed the NYPD to proceed immediately to summons or even arrest those who gather in large groups. This is about stopping this disease and saving lives. Period."

But when asked about the disparate treatment of protesters violating the city's ban on gatherings, he basically admitted that it was more important than religion. “When you see a nation, an entire nation, simultaneously grappling with an extraordinary crisis seeded in 400 years of American racism, I’m sorry, that is not the same question as the understandably aggrieved store owner or the devout religious person who wants to go back to services,” said the mayor.

Sure, we need liquor and Amazon Prime, but receiving communion and reciting the mourner's Kaddish - pssht, those aren't essential. 

 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Amulek

[Scott Lloyd]

56 minutes ago, Boanerges said:

Are you certain Elder Bednar was referring to New York? Here is what he said about his Catholic example:

For example, the orders of one state barred Catholic priests from anointing a parishioner with holy oil in the performance of last rites—even if the person was not sick with COVID-19, even if the priest and parishioner were protected with masks and gloves, and even if the oil was applied with a swab. In the same state, my Church could not perform baptisms even under the safest of conditions.
No, I am not sure it was NY but I am sure similar things happened in NY. Our church cannot perform baptisms here either - still. The missionaries do teach via social media/video but they are still stuck in their apartments most of the time. They are allowed to go outside to "exercise" up to an hour a day and complete P day activities on a limited basis (do it quick).  There are no blessings to be given, no setting aparts, no live temple recommend interviews, no meetings of any kind, etc. My understanding is that these are all church restrictions, not necessarily government restrictions. The government has allowed meetings/groups up to 10 for a couple weeks and just upped it to 25 this week. That would seem to allow things like bishopric or ward council, but they are still forbidden by the church (my bishop specifically asked the stake president) .There are government restrictions in addition. A few hospitals have been allowed to pilot allowing immediate family visitors with full PPE, etc. So even if priesthood blessings were allowed, priesthood otherwise aren't allowed to come to the hospital to give the blessing unless it's your immediate family member (we have a case like that currently in our ward and none of our local hospitals are part of the pilot).  

This does strike me as draconian, especially if secular interests were getting a pass under comparable conditions and circumstances. 
Draconian? Maybe. But in Elder Bednar's description it does not seem to be singling out specific churches - Catholics can't give blessings or baptize and neither can we. Since it is clear that the spread of COVID is exacerbated by large gatherings, restricting such large gatherings seems perfectly reasonable to me.  

Moreover, your taking your instructions from your area leadership does not rule out said instructions having been driven by directive from local government. I’m certain the Church leaders, in an effort to be “good citizens,” have done all they can in each and every locale to accede to the demands of civil authority so as to avoid needless conflict, whether or not the demands have been perfectly reasonable and equitable. 
I'm sure the Area Presidency does consult current government policies/restrictions - it says they should in the church's phased reopening plan. My area is very large and encompasses several states, not all of which have the same restrictions we have - but church meetings and other church restrictions have not been lifted in those other states either (as far as I can tell). Six of the 11 temples in the Area are in phase 1, three of those just this week. I have a neighbor who is a sealer in the Palmyra Temple and he says he was told he shouldn't report for his shift this week and they'll let him know when he is needed. He of course normally is involved in proxy sealings. 

Lastly, in reference to your first paragraph above, I believe Elder Bednar spoke the truth when he said if religious folk are forbidden to gather, they will tend to scatter. 

This one I'm just not sure about. The Jews survived their various diasporas, although undoubtedly lost some. As I said in another response here, I expect our attendance to remain pretty much the same after it all dies down. 

But Elder Bednar’s Catholic example would not have involved large groups — or groups of any size — just administration of last rites. That need only be an interaction between two people, the priest and the person receiving the rites, under tightly controlled conditions. 
 

And as our  Church leadership noted earlier in guidelines pertaining to conducting ordinances during the pandemic, a baptismal service could involve as few as four people. If it’s a baptism of an 8-year-old in a family of Church members, all four individuals conceivably could be members of the same household. The bishop or a bishopric member wouldn’t even have to be present so long as the bishop had given advance authorization. Yet apparently, baptismal services of any kind were forbidden. 
 

So yes, the directives described by Elder Bednar in his examples do seem draconian — and inequitable if secular interests are being given greater leniency. 
 

No one has claimed specific churches are being singled out, only that faith-based groups in general are not being given equitable treatment in some instances as compared with secular interests. 
 

Judaism may have survived as a culture over the centuries, but the Jews did indeed scatter. The very word diaspora denotes scattering. And the other tribes of Israel scattered to the extent they don’t even have a group identity today. 
 

I think the concern expressed by Elder Bednar is very real. Without the ability to gather with other adherents to their religion, people of faith cannot rely on one another for support, encouragement and mutual service, and it becomes very much more difficult to maintain their devotion and cohesiveness as a people. It seems self evident to me that over time they would scatter.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Boanerges said:

You make a very good point. Church itself was not specifically banned in NY either, it was large gatherings that were banned. Churches were welcome to hold video services (my ward does a weekly thing), and in the church sacrament was authorized to be administered in homes with a worthy priesthood holder. There were some churches that held parking lot services. My area is one of the more advanced in the reopening phases (NY's phase 3) and no churches have resumed services in my area that I am aware of, although the governor now allows gatherings of up to 25 and restaurants can open at 50% capacity. 

There have been instances where even drive-up church services have brought heavy handed punishment from local government. 

[Kevin Christensen]

And there is this kind of thing:

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/church-tied-oregons-largest-coronavirus-outbreak-71289210

SALEM, Ore. -- A church in rural northeastern Oregon is now the epicenter of the state's largest coronavirus outbreak, as 236 people tested positive for the disease, authorities said Tuesday.

The outbreak also led to Oregon's second consecutive record-setting daily case count.

 

My Mom in Utah is 101, alert, active, faithful, and not feeling the need to sacrifice her life or put others at risk on the altar of Freedom.  I notice that Jesus did not say freedom is the first and great commandment.  My wife has some health conditions that put her in the high risk category.  All not going to church during a global pandemic that is being appallingly managed by the US (more deaths than WWII so far, and a total of 200,000 dead total expected by October, and instructive contrasts in how things are going elsewhere, where the Mahan Principle is not in charge) means for our spirituality and faith committment is that we get to select our own Sunday Speakers.  We've been doing FAIR Conferences, Hugh Nibley, Margaret Barker, Amish and Mormon, Wendy Ulrich, Valerie Hudson, and etcetera.  It's been wonderfully faith promoting.   Sure, social distancing is annoying, but if personal annoyance is the only cost a person counts, what does that say about their values?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[Boanerges]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But Elder Bednar’s Catholic example would not have involved large groups — or groups of any size — just administration of last rites. That need only be an interaction between two people, the priest and the person receiving the rites, under tightly controlled conditions. 
 

And as our  Church leadership noted earlier in guidelines pertaining to conducting ordinances during the pandemic, a baptismal service could involve as few as four people. If it’s a baptism of an 8-year-old in a family of Church members, all four individuals conceivably could be members of the same household. The bishop or a bishopric member wouldn’t even have to be present so long as the bishop had given advance authorization. Yet apparently, baptismal services of any kind were forbidden. 
I agree, and I can't say I am familiar with the specific Catholic case except I do know that in NY it would have been very difficult under the strictest restrictions (especially in NYC) to have accomplished the blessing and I know what we were instructed by our local leaders - no blessings or personal visits/interactions of any kind. Even with lesser restrictions now in place in my area (gatherings of up to 25) the church is still forbidding baptisms even though the instructions say it could be done with as few as 4. I am familiar with an instance where this is the case. The part member family spouse is ready for baptism but we can't do it yet even with just the absolute minimum people which is well under what would be allowed under the law.

So yes, the directives described by Elder Bednar in his examples do seem draconian — and inequitable if secular interests are being given greater leniency. 
I don't disagree that perhaps liquor stores should have been closed as well, but as was pointed out earlier by someone else there are not crowds in the liquor stores, and restrictions in other stores (like supermarkets and WalMart) made social distancing easier. One way aisles, mask requirements, and limiting the number of people in the building were some of those restrictions. As I said earlier, church services in NY were never expressly forbidden by the state but large gatherings were. The mayor of NYC and the governor apparently do not always see eye-to-eye and I don't live in NYC. For us in this rural upstate community the current church related restrictions are coming from the church (but we're not alone, other churches are also not having services but I don't know what their status is with ministering type visits, baptisms, etc.).

No one has claimed specific churches are being singled out, only that faith-based groups in general are not being given equitable treatment in some instances as compared with secular interests. 
I agree the mass protests were at least as dangerous as church services. There are clearly other factors in play not the least of which is the racial tension underlying the protests. It was nearly impossible for the government to do anything different than what they did. Churches with organization will comply with reasonable requests which clearly protect their congregants. The protesters had no such organization or motivation, their motivation was different. 

Judaism may have survived as a culture over the centuries, but the Jews did indeed scatter. The very word diaspora denotes scattering. And the other tribes of Israel scattered to the extent they don’t even have a group identity today. 
Their culture and their religion survived. In the sense of the Jewish diasporas our church is already scattered around the globe as it should be.

I think the concern expressed by Elder Bednar is very real. Without the ability to gather with other adherents to their religion, people of faith cannot rely on one another for support, encouragement and mutual service, and it becomes very much more difficult to maintain their devotion and cohesiveness as a people. It seems self evident to me that over time they would scatter.

Whether the restrictions we have gone through the past few months, some of which I will reiterate are currently put in place by the church itself, affects our local congregations remains to be seen. I expect the majority of my ward/stake that was active before will be active again and those that were not active will remain so. Perhaps this was God's way of driving home the importance of the home centered part of the "home centered church supported" principle. I was already a fan, but I have come to appreciate it more myself. 

 

[Boanerges]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There have been instances where even drive-up church services have brought heavy handed punishment from local government. 

I'm sure there has been. Not here. I personally don't like the idea, but if it works for them than so be it. For what it's worth, I don't usually participate in my ward's Zoom meetings either, preferring to do things the way Kevin Christensen does. I did participate in our stake priesthood meeting though. To each his own. 

There was what I thought was some government heavy handedness in a neighboring county, but it had to do with retailers and enforcing the number of people in the building and the wearing of masks. That's more of a civil rights issue than a religious rights issue though. I am honestly more irked by having to remember a mask (and those who don't wear masks) than I am by not being able to go to church. I don't want to go to church yet for their safety and mine. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

And there is this kind of thing:

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/church-tied-oregons-largest-coronavirus-outbreak-71289210

SALEM, Ore. -- A church in rural northeastern Oregon is now the epicenter of the state's largest coronavirus outbreak, as 236 people tested positive for the disease, authorities said Tuesday.

The outbreak also led to Oregon's second consecutive record-setting daily case count.

 

My Mom in Utah is 101, alert, active, faithful, and not feeling the need to sacrifice her life or put others at risk on the altar of Freedom.  I notice that Jesus did not say freedom is the first and great commandment.  My wife has some health conditions that put her in the high risk category.  All not going to church during a global pandemic that is being appallingly managed by the US (more deaths than WWII so far, and a total of 200,000 dead total expected by October, and instructive contrasts in how things are going elsewhere, where the Mahan Principle is not in charge) means for our spirituality and faith committment is that we get to select our own Sunday Speakers.  We've been doing FAIR Conferences, Hugh Nibley, Margaret Barker, Amish and Mormon, Wendy Ulrich, Valerie Hudson, and etcetera.  It's been wonderfully faith promoting.   Sure, social distancing is annoying, but if personal annoyance is the only cost a person counts, what does that say about their values?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Reading through Elder Bednar’s remarks, I don’t get the impression he is advocating “sacrificing [one’s] life or “put[ting] others at risk on the alter of freedom.” He speaks of finding a balance. His words are very measured and eminently reasonable. 
 

I have not felt in any way oppressed or put upon as I have followed the guidelines of Church and civil authorities in Utah during this pandemic. I worry, though, for others as I read or hear of instances in other locales impacting persons in other faith groups, incidents such as Elder Bednar described. Again, I want religious liberty not just for myself but for everyone. 

[pogi]

47 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Reading through Elder Bednar’s remarks, I don’t get the impression he is advocating “sacrificing [one’s] life or “put[ting] others at risk on the alter of freedom.” He speaks of finding a balance. His words are very measured and eminently reasonable. 

Ok, let's talk about balance.  In Utah, orange zones are limited to group gathering sizes of 20 people, yet churches are allowed to gather (and sing) in group sizes 5 X that, even in orange zones!!!  Yellow zones (most of Utah) are limited to groups of 50 while churches are allowed to double that group size...where is the "balance" there???  It makes ZERO sense!  Everybody is crying foul, saying churches are persecuted and being treated unfairly.  I see the opposite happening.  Why are churches the single exception to the rule that the rest of society has to follow?   Are church goers somehow less risk of infection?  Why the reckless exception?

I am all for a measured approach.  I agree that churches should be allowed to gather the same as anyone else, in emergency or not - but they should NOT be given special privilege's to gather in larger groups.  They should be limited in the same way all other organizations are to 20 congregants in orange zones and 50 congregants in yellow.   

As far as calling churches "essential", that is tricky.  Churches should be limited the same way everyone else is.  If gatherings are not allowed, then churches should not be an exception.  If groups of 10 are allowed, then churches should be limited to groups of 10 at a time, etc.  However, calling something "essential" gives church workers/volunteers the right to continue gathering/working even if they are a high-risk exposure to the virus.  This means, a church worker/volunteer might be a household contact of 3 infected people in their home, and normally these people would be quarantined and not allowed to work, as they are high risk to the community.  However, calling their work "essential" creates an exception - as long as they are not symptomatic, they can continue working at church even if they are very high-risk, because they are considered "essential".   I can see that need for this exception with healthcare workers, etc., but I don't think that church workers should be allowed to keep working despite being a high-risk contact on quarantine.   They are not essential in the same way.  People's spirituality will not be shattered if a church worker needs to quarantine for 2 weeks.  Religious liberty will not be hampered.  That is why I don't think they should necessarily be considered essential.  

Edited June 18, 2020 by pogi

[2BizE]

I appreciate Elder Bednar’s comments and his right to share his ideas.  I am also in favor of religious freedoms, but I disagree with several of Elder Bednar’s statements.  First, I do not think that meeting together as a religious body should listed as a critical resource as he suggests.  It is not. Second, many documented exposure to Covid and several deaths were related to irresponsible religious leaders organizing church services.  Third, This pandemic has shown the church’s lack of flexibility in providing sacrament, blessings, and other rites.  Can sacrament or a blessing be provided via a phone call or Skype?  Surely they can, but there has been no movement from church leadership to assist in these alternative methods.  If the church president can at will change the age of priesthood reception or the color of missionary shirts, surely the administration of religious rites can be better accommodated during a pandemic. Fourth, it really felt like Elder Bednar’s remarks suggest it is fine to put our elderly and less healthy members in the community at risk just so people can get together for a religious service. Seems hypocritical.

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, pogi said:

If we are strictly speaking about mortality, then mortal life makes mortal worship possible.  It is primal in every sense.  Life is primal to agency too. 

And like I said, agency makes worship possible as well.  Without agency there can be no worship.  For that reason I don't see that life is any more primal than agency, especially considering that we aren't talking about someone being denied mortal life (which would be a discussion on abortion) but the length of mortal life and someone's life being shortened unjustly.

And like I said before, I really do think this is a little bit like trying to argue which blade in a pair of scissors is most important.  

[pogi]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And like I said, agency makes worship possible as well.  Without agency there can be no worship.  For that reason I don't see that life is any more primal than agency, especially considering that we aren't talking about someone being denied mortal life (which would be a discussion on abortion) but the length of mortal life and someone's life being shortened unjustly.

And like I said before, I really do think this is a little bit like trying to argue which blade in a pair of scissors is most important.  

I don't understand what agency has to do with this argument.  We are comparing our constitutional rights here.  But I'll play along - you can't have agency without life.  Both eternally and in mortality, life came first, so I can say it is more primal.  Life makes agency possible.  All other rights and privileges stem from our right to life. 

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And like I said before, I really do think this is a little bit like trying to argue which blade in a pair of scissors is most important.  

Then you disagree with Elder Bednar too, but for different reasons.  He made it very clear that there was an unequivocally "more important" and "paramount" blade.  I actually agree with him there, I just disagree with the blade he chose. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

47 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ok, let's talk about balance.  In Utah, orange zones are limited to group gathering sizes of 20 people, yet churches are allowed to gather (and sing) in group sizes 5 X that, even in orange zones!!!  Yellow zones (most of Utah) are limited to groups of 50 while churches are allowed to double that group size...where is the "balance" there???  It makes ZERO sense!  Everybody is crying foul, saying churches are persecuted and being treated unfairly.  I see the opposite happening.  Why are churches the single exception to the rule that the rest of society has to follow?   Are church goers somehow less risk of infection?  Why the reckless exception?

I am all for a measured approach.  I agree that churches should be allowed to gather the same as anyone else, in emergency or not - but they should NOT be given special privilege's to gather in larger groups.  They should be limited in the same way all other organizations are to 20 congregants in orange zones and 50 congregants in yellow.   

As far as calling churches "essential", that is tricky.  Churches should be limited the same way everyone else is.  If gatherings are not allowed, then churches should not be an exception.  If groups of 10 are allowed, then churches should be limited to groups of 10 at a time, etc.  However, calling something "essential" gives church workers/volunteers the right to continue gathering/working even if they are a high-risk exposure to the virus.  This means, a church worker/volunteer might be a household contact of 3 infected people in their home, and normally these people would be quarantined and not allowed to work, as they are high risk to the community.  However, calling their work "essential" creates an exception - as long as they are not symptomatic, they can continue working at church even if they are very high-risk, because they are considered "essential".   I can see that need for this exception with healthcare workers, etc., but I don't think that church workers should be allowed to keep working despite being a high-risk contact on quarantine.   They are not essential in the same way.  People's spirituality will not be shattered if a church worker needs to quarantine for 2 weeks.  Religious liberty will not be hampered.  That is why I don't think they should necessarily be considered essential.  

I don’t see churches as being “a single exception.” But I do stongly agree with Elder Bednar — and, I guess, by logical implication, disagree with you — about the providing of spiritual health being among essential services for which reasonable accommodations should be made. For reasons well articulated in Eldrr Bednar’s address to the BYU Management Society summarized on the Church’s “Newsroom” web page. 

Edited June 18, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Anijen]

I agree with Elder Bednar 100%!

Many here have been talking about balance, which I think is reasonable. However, many using that approach use Utah and some Washington as the states for their examples.

I live in Nebraska, and as far as I know we are the only state that has not placed limitations statewide, but it is up to each county. We could eat at restaurants here in Wayne, but could only use delivery service or not at all in Omaha. But church services were banned statewide. There does seem to be an effort to place religion in a lesser important category of right than alcohol, shopping, driving, etc.. And I do not buy the argument that Covid is less risk to us at a Walmart than in church especially if the church can use proper social distancing.

In New York City, all religious services held at churches were banned no matter the size, but is only being enforced selectively, e.g., Muslims can meet in daily prayers, hold funeral arrangements, etc., which are banned but not being enforced, but Jewish people are being threatened with arrest if they hold any service for any amount of people. Limitations are being placed is an issue, but there are some states were those limitations are given a wink-wink while others are being cracked down on. I was in Minneapolis delivering my sons furniture to him (he had recently moved there). While staying in a hotel that was connected to the Mall of America, I noticed the nearby mosque was allowing many people in. I have friends in Washington and in Michigan and I have reached out to them and asked about their services and all were having home church. I asked about other religions and both replied that they have the same lockdown limitations but knew that Mosques were allowed to have their five daily prayer calls attended there. I have nothing against Muslims and am happy for them being allowed that freedom of worship to do so. This was before any limitations were lifted.

When an issue gets politicized religious liberty appears to be for some religions but not for others.

Edited to add: There were some eating places here in my hometown that only allowed drive through services.  Although they were not banned by the state to do so, but self-imposed that limitation. I'm sure it was done to protect from future litigation and for the visual optic of protecting their employees and their customers. I'm just happy the Mexican and Chinese restaurants here stayed open for dine in while McDonalds and Runza only had drive through.

Edited June 18, 2020 by Anijen

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Boanerges said:

I'm sure there has been. Not here. I personally don't like the idea, but if it works for them than so be it. For what it's worth, I don't usually participate in my ward's Zoom meetings either, preferring to do things the way Kevin Christensen does. I did participate in our stake priesthood meeting though. To each his own. 

There was what I thought was some government heavy handedness in a neighboring county, but it had to do with retailers and enforcing the number of people in the building and the wearing of masks. That's more of a civil rights issue than a religious rights issue though. I am honestly more irked by having to remember a mask (and those who don't wear masks) than I am by not being able to go to church. I don't want to go to church yet for their safety and mine. 

Religious freedom is a civil rights issue. 
 

And if the pandemic is grave enough to limit the right to gather, surely it is grave enough to warrant the requiring of masks and limiting the number of people in stores. 

[stemelbow]

I think it's pretty clear, I guess I'll repeat, he or they are concerned about the scattering of their faithful, as a result of not meeting in person.  I'm guessing they are seeing something causing concern.  

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see churches as being “a single exception.” 

Show me any other exception in Utah spelled out in executive order.  CFR.

Do you think it is balanced and fair to allow churches to gather in groups of 99 and SING together in orange risk areas where the virus is spreading at much higher rates, while all other businesses and organizations are limited to 15 people?  Why the special privilege?  

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

by logical implication, disagree with you — about the providing of spiritual health being among essential services for which reasonable accommodations should be made. For reasons well articulated in Eldrr Bednar’s address to the BYU Management Society summarized on the Church’s “Newsroom” web page. 

"Reasonable" is the key word there.  I agree with that.  There should be reasonable and BALANCED accommodations made.  I don't think it is reasonable for a high-risk church worker who should be on quarantine, to attend and sing at church with groups of 99!  There is nothing reasonable about that.  The spiritual welfare of the group will not be unreasonably affected by one single church worker missing church for 2 weeks because he is on quarantine and high-risk to the congregation and community.  It is COMPLETELY unreasonable to place the lives and health of 99 community members at risk so that 1 single high-risk church worker doesn't have to be quarantined for 2 weeks in the name of religious liberty!  Nope.  don't be ridiculous.  That is careless and reckless.  In comparing the risk of harm to physical health and spiritual health, there is much less risk in overall harm (physically and spiritually speaking) by simply quarantining that worker.  He is not essential in the same way.    If health care workers don't work, people die.  If a greeter at church, or Elder's quorum president, or bishop doesn't go to church for 2 weeks, nobody dies physically or spiritually.  No comparison. I have seen church workers miss church for much longer than that...guess what, we still thrived spiritually.  

Is spiritual health essential?  Yes, of course!!!  I don't think anyone would disagree with that here.  But that term (essential) has different implications and practical applications here that people are not considering.  Don't get hung up on the emotional semantics and application of the term here.  It doesn't mean that spiritual health is not essential in the way you guys are thinking about it.   

Edited June 18, 2020 by pogi